Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karalyn Brown

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus to show that what is demonstrated is not notability DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karalyn Brown

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for being the most connected woman on LinkedIn. Is that enough for Notability? There are a number of sources in this article, but most appear to be her being interviewed or asked for an opinion. Don't believe that she is notable Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I doubt she even has met the majority of people connected to her on LinkedIn. Recruitment consultants are notorious for trawling LinkedIn all day and adding contacts. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources needed to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that "being the most connected person on Linkedin" is not enough for notability but the sources for publishing articles in multiple publications are mentioned. She is also a public speaker and has appeared on Australian and New Zealand TV and radio. --Siavash65 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Siavash65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as unlikely better satisfying WP:CREATIVE and my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment IMO the article meets notability guideline's Basic Criteria and in WP:CREATIVE, no 1 and no 3 are met: Numerous second hand and first hand articles in renowned publications, book publication, seminars and regular media appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siavash65 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment An important missing point here is that an entry's local notability should also be taken into account. Here we are dealing with a notability in Australia. Should a person be known in all English speaking countries to be considered notable? --Siavash65 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 12:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the issue for debate here is that this personality has multidimensional background and it may make notability assessment complicated. Apart from all the references in the document, I believe she could be nominated for notability even just for her journalism in The Australian, as a tier one publication. I insist again that local Australian notability should be taken seriously here. The Australian TV, radio and paper media are naturally not comparable to American in size, but this should not become a matter of judgement here. --Siavash65 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion above. Aeonx (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.